The Book => “A WOMAN OF QUALITY: Sarah Vinke, ‘The Divine Sarah’, and the Quest for the Origin of Robert Pirsig's 'Metaphysics of Quality” Has Many Explanations Of The Major Idea Called “Constructivism”.

These Explanations Are Shown Below, So Readers Of Robert Pirsig’s Book “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” (ZMM), Will Be Able To Realize That Constructivism Is The General Foundational Undergirding Of ZMM. This Is Most Apparent When Pirsig Uses The Word ‘Construct’, Specifically With This Meaning, NINE Times In ZMM. '''

NOTE: See bottom of this WebPage for Links To Further Reading.

**** Excerpts From Book “A WOMAN OF QUALITY:” ****

Now, another thing that these three authors give [some from Michael Polanyi but], most particularly Owen Barfield and Robert Pirsig, is the rock-bottom truth of the whole idea of constructivism: Which says in essence =>
…Our problem solving brain constructs, builds up, throughout our daily activity, our complete world in our own minds. This leads, in turn, to the understanding that the whole universe as we know it, exists only in our own minds. This same conclusion, is also implied in all of ZMM, where Dynamic Quality is the cutting edge of reality’, and makes our reality (i.e. constructs our reality), “All of it. Every last bit of it. ”

…The first use of the concept of constructivism was in psychology, people constructing in their own minds, what they think someone else is thinking. Then physicists adopted this term, when they realized that students constructed, in their own minds, physics. They realized that: Physics teachers don’t teach Physics. Rather, the physics teacher must properly present the physics material to be learned in such a manner that their students can (on their own) build up accurate physics knowledge in their own mind. Not only must the student build [ie construct] a physical model of physics in their own mind, but also, at the same time, build [ie construct] an understanding of physics. This same idea (technically called Constructivism) is important for ALL of us to understand.
…Thus, Along with our normal ongoing perception of the world around us, our brain is (automatically) forming memory traces of everything we see and think. Simultaneously, these on-going ‘perceptions and stored-memory-trace-content together actively (problem-solving brain again), combine to ‘construct’ our general mental model of the world around us. This ‘constructed general mental model of the world around us (then stored in memory), is the very ‘thing’ that, in the ongoing future, is turned around and used for decoding (second by second) our next perception.
…Now, the more I think about it, the more I realize that this truth applies to absolutely everything that comes into our mind. We construct the universe around us, from the get-go. It’s all constructed by and in our own human brain … in our own human mind. This is how Pirsig puts it in ZMM:

Now, here’s my own second interpretation of how I am affected by Pirsig’s book and his Quality. This my non-mystical interpretation, is a bit more involved, and thus harder to understand, and a whole lot harder to get used to. My own second version proceeds from Pirsig’s statement on constructivism:

…Now, Dynamic Quality is Pirsig’s name for what does the created (constructed) in our mind, and ONLY in our own mind. And in a certain sense, Pirsig’s name for that which runs our mind. In this view, ‘The universe’ (the ONLY universe we have), is what Dynamic Quality has constructed in our own minds, and since Dynamic Quality creates and is

…Now, in our mind, how is this actually being done? We can best understand all this with the physics model of Princeton Physicist J J Hopfield: He created a Mathematical Theory, that showed for a biological brain, that Single, All At Once (such as a Flash of Insight), Optimal Solutions To Surrounding World Complex Input, is indeed possible, indeed likely. Thus Hopfield says essentially, that our human problem solving ability, (an action Pirsig calls Quality) is a natural property of our God given brain. From this we can see, that Pirsig’s Dynamic Quality, is an ability, really an intrinsic property of our own physical-biological human mind. And from this naturally follows, that the Hopfield Theory strongly supports what Pirsig is saying and points to just how it is that our brain, as a physical system, can discover good answers, i.e. good solutions, to what I would call ‘life’s problems coming at us’. (Pirsig calls this the result of Dynamic Quality in action.)
…And these solutions (some of which are perceptions and insights) are to be understood as constructing, in our mind, the whole universe, as Pirsig says. “Every last bit of it. ” This quoted phrase is asserted four times in ZMM, so Pirsig surely must really mean this. From this [and the 9 uses of “construct in ZMM] our readers should go on to realize that Constructivism is the general foundational undergirding of ZMM.
…This is most apparent when Pirsig uses the word ‘construct’, specifically with this meaning, NINE times in ZMM, quoting Albert Einstein and Henri’ Poincare’, along the way. And I believe Pirsig’s ‘create the world in which we live’ applies (at most) to the part of the universe that is created (brain constructivism), in … our own mind … which is all we can ever know.
…This again is Pirsig’s Dynamic Quality, constructing the universe, in our mind is all of our knowledge, which Pirsig calls Static Quality. In ZMM, Pirsig summarizes how important this constructivism is:
“The sun of quality,’ he wrote, ‘does not revolve around the subjects and objects of our existence. It does not just passively illuminate them. It is not subordinate to them in any way. It has created them. They are subordinate to it. ”

[Getting back to, and building on, a previous topic:]
…Now, Dynamic Quality is Pirsig’s name for what does the created (constructed) in our mind, and ONLY in our own mind. And in a certain sense, Pirsig’s name for that which runs our own mind, then Dynamic Quality creates and runs the universe, or at least the only universe we know of. In summary: Dynamic Quality creates the subjects and objects of this world, because it’s created them, along with the whole universe, and human babies, in (and ONLY in), our own mind. Effectively it’s the only world we’ve got, because it’s all, and only, in our own mind. So that’s my restricted second interpretation of Pirsig’s Quality, and where I think it fits overall. … However realistically, in this second interpretation, Quality can’t actually ‘run’ the ‘real out there’ universe, because what ‘runs the real universe’ is, at rock bottom, unknowable. But certainly, Quality runs our own mind, and our own mind creates the universe in our mind, and that’s the sense, at which Quality runs the universe. A physical scientist, who accepts constructivism, might eventually come around to agreeing with this second interpretation. Owen Barfield effectively says the same thing: … when we study long-term changes in [human] consciousness, we are studying changes in the world itself and not simply the human brain.
… [NOTE: Please think carefully here: For Barfield, similar to Pirsig, this “world” or “universe”, has it’s ONLY existence in our mind! The “world” or “universe” outside of ourselves (such as we commonly think of it), may, or may not “be there”!] In the quotation above, we have to realize that Barfield’s ‘changes in the world’ are in our mind, and that’s the sense, at which Robert Pirsig’s “Quality” runs the universe. A physical scientist, who accepts constructivism, might eventually come around to agreeing with this second interpretation. Owen Barfield effectively says the same thing: … when we study long-term changes in [human] consciousness, we are studying changes in the world itself and not simply the human brain.
…In the quotation above, we have to ALSO realize that Barfield’s ‘changes in the world’ are achieved (just in our own mind), by mental arrivals he calls ‘inspirations’, which step by step, over eons of time, create his ‘evolution of human consciousness’. Pirsig’s version of this is already mention in quote above, and means the mental arrivals he calls ‘crystallization’, also, like Barfield’s Inspiration, is a step in constructivism, in action: To illustrate this, we repeat what Pirsig says:

…So, in summary, ZMM was a tremendous relief to me. It helped me out of the Nihilism Trap, along with Owen Barfield’s “Saving The Appearances” Both authors were providing me with answers for my teaching, which we’ve already discussed. Both books were certainly helping me, solidify the whole idea, and truth, of constructivism (as a theory guide), which was already emerging as an important, useful conclusion, coming out of all my research about best ways of teaching.

Readers Of Robert Pirsig’s Book “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” (ZMM), Should Go On To Realize That Constructivism Is The General Foundational Undergirding Of ZMM. This Is Most Apparent When Pirsig Uses The Word ‘Construct’, Specifically With This Meaning, NINE Times In ZMM, As Are Shown Below =>

“But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repair of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce [construct] another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding. ”
… “That’s all the motorcycle is, a system of concepts worked out [construcedt] in steel. There’s no part in it, no shape in it, that is not out of someone’s mind . . . number three tappet is right on too. One more to go. This had better be it . . . .I’ve noticed that people who have never worked with steel have trouble seeing this—that the motorcycle is primarily a mental phenomenon. They associate metal with given shapes—pipes, rods, girders, tools, parts—all of them fixed and inviolable, and think of it as primarily physical. But a person who does machining or foundry work or forge work or welding sees "steel" as having no shape at all. Steel can be any shape you want if you are skilled enough, and any shape but the one you want if you are not. Shapes, like this tappet, are what you arrive at, what you give to the steel. Steel has no more shape than this old pile of dirt on the engine here. These shapes are all out of someone’s mind. That’s important to see. The steel? Hell, even the steel is out of someone’s mind. There’s no steel in nature. Anyone from the Bronze Age could have told you that. All nature has is a potential for steel. There’s nothing else there. But what’s "potential"? That’s also in someone’s mind! . . . Ghosts. ”
… “That’s really what Phædrus was talking about when he said it’s all in the mind. It sounds insane when you just jump up and say it without reference to anything specific like an engine. But when you tie it down to something specific and concrete, the insane sound tends to disappear and you see he could have been saying something of importance. ”

……

“If Phædrus had entered science for ambitious or utilitarian purposes it might never have occurred to him to ask questions about the nature of a scientific hypothesis as an entity in itself. But he did ask them, and was unsatisfied with the answers. ”
… “The formation of hypotheses is the most mysterious of all the categories of scientific method. Where they come from, no one knows. A person is sitting somewhere, minding his own business, and suddenly—flash!—he understands something he didn’t understand before. Until it’s tested the hypothesis isn’t truth. For the tests aren’t its source. Its source is somewhere else.” [Polanyi agree, see page 80.5 Gelwick.]
… “Einstein had said: ”

[Polanyi & Pirsig, and both focus on these kind of scientists statements of Einstein and Poincare’ & agree as to what it means re skill, (tacit) knowledge, and flash of insight, or unknown origin.].
. . . “He makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life in order to find in this way the peace and serenity which he cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience . . . .The supreme task . . . is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them ” . . . .
“Intuition? Sympathy? Strange words for the origin of scientific knowledge. ”

……

… “A lesser scientist than Einstein might have said, "But scientific knowledge comes from nature. Nature provides the hypotheses." But Einstein understood that nature does not. Nature provides only experimental data.”
… “A lesser mind might then have said, "Well then, man provides the hypotheses." But Ei nstein denied this too. "Nobody," he said, "who has really gone into the matter will deny that in practice the world of phenomena uniquely determines the theoretical system, in spite of the fact that there is no theoretical bridge between phenomena and their theoretical principles.”

……

… “About this [construction of Science] Einstein had said, "Evolution has shown that at any given moment out of all conceivable constructions a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to the rest," and let it go at that. But to Phædrus that was an incredibly weak answer. The phrase "at any given moment" really shook him. Did Einstein really mean to state that truth was a function of time? To state that would annihilate the most basic presumption of all science! ”
… “But there it was, the whole history of science, a clear story of continuously new and changing explanations of old facts. The time spans of permanence seemed completely random he could see no order in them. Some scientific truths seemed to last for centuries, others for less than a year. Scientific truth was not dogma, good for eternity, but a temporal quantitative entity that could be studied like anything else. ”

……

… “In his Foundations of Science Poincaré explained that the antecedents of the crisis in the foundations of science were very old. It had long been sought in vain, he said, to demonstrate the axiom known as Euclid’s fifth postulate and this search was the start of the crisis. Euclid’s postulate of parallels, which states that through a given point there’s not more than one parallel line to a given straight line, we usually learn in tenth-grade geometry. It is one of the basic building blocks out of which the entire mathematics of geometry is constructed. ”

……

… “Lobachevski assumes at the start that through a given point can be drawn two parallels to a given straight. And he retains besides all Euclid’s other axioms. From these hypotheses he deduces a series of theorems among which it’s impossible to find any contradiction, and he constructs a geometry whose faultless logic is inferior in nothing to that of the Euclidian geometry. ”

……

… '' “Poincaré laid down some rules: There is a hierarchy of facts.
The more general a fact, the more precious it is. Those which serve many times are better than those which have little chance of coming up again. Biologists, for example, would be at a loss to construct a science if only individuals and no species existed, and if heredity didn’t make children like parents. ” ''

……

… “The birth of a new fact is always a wonderful thing to experience. It’s dualistically called a "discovery" because of the presumption that it has an existence independent of anyone’s awareness of it. When it comes along, it always has, at first, a low value. Then, depending on the value-looseness of the observer and the potential quality of the fact, its value increases, either slowly or rapidly, or the value wanes and the fact disappears. ”

……

… “This irrefutable truth seemed to suggest that the reason scientists cannot detect Quality in objects is because Quality is all they detect. [Polanyi agree in essence.] The "object" is an intellectual constructdeduced from the qualities. This answer, if valid, certainly smashed the first horn of the dilemma, and for a while excited him greatly.”

……

… “We constantly seek to find, in the Quality event, analogues to our previous experiences. If we didn’t we’d be unable to act. We build up [construct] our language in terms of these analogues. We build up [construct] our whole culture in terms of these analogues.”
… “The reason people see Quality differently, he said, is because they come to it with different sets of analogues.” ….
…..
… “In our highly complex organic state we advanced organisms respond to our environment with an invention [construct] of many marvelous analogues. We invent earth and heavens, trees, stones and oceans, gods, music, arts, language, philosophy, engineering, civilization and science. We call these analogues reality. And they are reality. We mesmerize our children in the name of truth into knowing that they are reality. We throw anyone who does not accept these analogues into an insane asylum. But that which causes us to invent [construct] the analogues is Quality. Quality is the continuing stimulus which our environment puts upon us to create [construct] the world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit of it. ”
… “"Now, to take that which has caused us to create [construct] the world, and include it within the world we have created, is clearly impossible. That is why Quality cannot be defined.”

NOTE: Robert Pirsig’s “Construct”, “Construction” statements (and understanding), given above, agrees with and are supported by Henry Gurr’s “Explanation (Theory) Of How Our Mind Works”, and conversely. Please see “Construct” successively in these WebPages =>

A General Theory (Explanation) of “How Our Mind Works.

The Properties & Characteristics Of Every Mental Arrival, Into Our Conscious Mind.

For Further Reading =>

“Constructivist epistemology is a branch in philosophy of science maintaining that scientific knowledge is constructed by the scientific community, who seek to measure and construct models of the natural world. Natural science therefore consists of mental constructs that aim to explain sensory experience and measurements. According to constructivists, the world is independent of human minds, but knowledge of the world is always a human and social construction. Constructivism opposes the philosophy of objectivism, embracing the belief that a human can come to know the truth about the natural world not mediated by scientific approximations with different degrees of validity and accuracy. According to constructivists there is no single valid methodology in science, but rather a diversity of useful methods.”
https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36881

“Constructivism is a theory in education which posits that individuals or learners do not acquire knowledge and understanding by passively perceiving it within a direct process of knowledge transmission, rather they construct new understandings and knowledge through experience and social discourse, integrating new information with what they already know (prior knowledge). For children, this includes knowledge gained prior to entering school. It is associated with various philosophical positions, particularly in epistemology as well as ontology, politics, and ethics. The origin of the theory is also linked to Swiss developmental psychologist Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development.”
Wikipedia Constructivism (Philosophy of Education).

“Constructivism has been considered as a dominant paradigm, or research programme, in the field of science education since the 1980s. The term constructivism is widely used in many fields, and not always with quite the same intention. This entry offers an account of how constructivism is most commonly understood in science education.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_in_science_education

“Constructivism is a view in the philosophy of science that maintains that scientific knowledge is constructed by the scientific community, which seeks to measure and construct models of the natural world. According to constructivists, natural science consists of mental constructs that aim to explain sensory experiences and measurements, and that there is no single valid methodology in science but rather a diversity of useful methods. They also hold that the world is independent of human minds, but knowledge of the world is always a human and social construction. Constructivism opposes the philosophy of objectivism, embracing the belief that human beings can come to know the truth about the natural world not mediated by scientific approximations with different degrees of validity and accuracy.”
Constructivism (Philosophy of Science).

“In contrast, ‘constructivism is an epistemological premise grounded on the assertion that, in the act of knowing, it is the human mind that actively gives [constructs] meaning and order to that reality to which it is responding’. The constructivist psychologies theorize about and investigate how human beings create [constructs] systems for meaningfully understanding their worlds and experiences.”
Constructivism (Psychological School).